1gonzo@cyberenet.net (Robert Gonzalez) wrote:

>Jerry Houston (jerryh@oz.net) wrote:
>: That's the way I read it, too. I was a freelance computer programmer for
>: about ten years, and when someone contracted for me to write software for
>: them, it was theirs alone. Lock, stock and barrel. I don't see any real
>: difference here.
>:
>: --
>: May contrast, saturation and resolution be with you always!
>:
>: Mikesphoto wrote in message
>: <19971213230701.SAA11728@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>: >In article <34931BC5.7926@mail.idt.net>, dannyg1@mail.idt.net writes:
>: >
>: >>NEW YORK (AP) - A federal judge dismissed a suit by photographers against
>: >The
>: >>Associated Press on Wednesday, saying the worldwide news agency has a
>: >legal
>: >>claim to copyright of all pictures taken for it by freelancers
>: >>on
>: >assignment.
>: >
>: >
>: >The operating word is here "on Assignment". They went in on assignment.
>: >That's work for hire seems to me.
>:
>:
>:
>
>Work for hire must be stipulated in WRITING, ie, the contract MUST SAY it's
>work for hire.
>
>You can't ASS/U/ME that it is.
>
>If the photographer's contracts didn't have this provision then the judge
>erred

If you're still interested in this case, I've found the NAFP's web
site...http://www.worldpics.com/nafp. It explains their side of the
story, and has the full text of the lawsuit, AP's controversial
agreement (which was withdrawn 3 days before the signing deadline),
and the NAFP's counter proposals. Photo District News has a small
article on the matter...http://www.pdn-pix.com/news/news-photoj.html,
but there aren't any updates in their current web issue. I've yet to
find the judges ruling in full or anything stating AP's position.

IMHO, I can understand why the judge felt that NAFP had no standing
as a professional organization. Their claims are a bit overreaching
and they seem to exist only to fight against this agreement, similar
to a class action party. That said, AP appears to be intentionally
trying to break new ground here. Nothing in their new agreement
specifically mentions "work for hire", in fact they fully recognize
freelancers as independent agents; yet all of terms lead photographers
into a de facto work for hire situation.
This appears to be changing AP's historical relationships with
free-lance shooters in midstream. It may be legal for new assignees,
but there is still the matter of the thousands of outtake images shot
before this agreement, which AP may now claim as their own.
This story has some implications for amateur and weekend
photgraphers as well as professionals. If you've ever submitted work
to publications, or entered a contest or exhibit, imagine if the
organizers state one set of rules at the beginning, use your image,
then declare on your paycheck that the photo is now theirs for life.

mpphoto @news.mindspring.com ?